Johnson v. Jun

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION SCOTT JOHNSON, Case No. 19-cv-06474-BLF 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS YOUN LEE AND JEONG AE LEE’S v. MOTION TO DISMISS IN SUK JUN et al., 12 [Re: ECF 16] Defendants.

14 In this action, Plaintiff Scott Johnson asserts claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (the “Unruh Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51-53. See generally Compl., ECF 1. Mr. Johnson seeks injunctive relief along with statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs. Id. In response, Jung Youn Lee and Jeong Ae Lee (together, “Lee Defendants”)1 have filed this motion to dismiss. Mot.

19 to Dismiss, ECF 16. Mr. Johnson opposes this motion. Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (“Opp’n.”), ECF 20. This matter was previously deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. See ECF 27. For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Lee Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

23 According to his Complaint, Mr. Johnson is a level C-5 quadriplegic who cannot walk and has significant manual dexterity impairments. Compl. ¶ 1. Mr. Johnson uses a wheelchair for mobility and has a specially equipped van. Id. Lee Defendants are proprietors of Eastridge Liquors The Complaint includes claims against two additional defendants: In Suk Jun and Kyu Jin Jun (together, “Jun Defendants”). Default has been entered against Jun Defendants. See ECF 23, 24.

1 (the “Store”), located at 1855 Tully Road, San Jose, California. Mot. to Dismiss at 2.

2 Mr. Johnson alleges that a barrier at the Store prevented him from enjoying full and equal access to the facility. Compl. ¶ 15. Specifically, Mr. Johnson alleges that he visited the Store on several occasions, including twice in April 2019 and once in May 2019. Id. ¶ 14. During each of those visits, Mr. Johnson claims that Lee Defendants failed to provide accessible parking. Id. ¶ 13.

6 According to Mr. Johnson, Lee Defendants’ failure to provide accessible facilities created “difficulty and discomfort” for him. Id. ¶ 16. Mr. Johnson claims that he will return to the Store once it is represented to him that the Store and its facilities are accessible. Id. ¶ 19.

9 In their motion to dismiss, Lee Defendants contend that their landlord built a new parking lot in October 2018 in compliance with the ADA, the 1992 ADA Accessibility Guidelines (the “ADAAG”), and the California Building Code in force at the time of the construction. Mot. to Dismiss at 2. Lee Defendants provide the City of San Jose’s approved plan number (17-002139) and inspection card number (17044235). Id. Lee Defendants claim that there have been no alterations, repairs, or improvements to the parking lot since the completion of construction. Id. Lee Defendants argue that since the parking lot has been in compliance with the ADA and the ADAAG when Plaintiff visited in April and May 2019, that “Plaintiff’s allegations are absolutely false.” Id. In support of their position, Lee Defendants provide several photographs attached to their motion to dismiss. See generally Mot. to Dismiss.

19 Mr. Johnson opposes Lee Defendants’ motion to dismiss on the ground that “it is solely based on extrinsic evidence and jurisdictional facts are intertwined with the merits of Plaintiff’s claims.” Opp’n at 1. Mr. Johnson further argues that Lee Defendants have not provided sufficient evidence (e.g., data on the slope and cross-slope of the parking space and access aisle) to support their claim that the Store’s parking lot complies with the ADA requirements. Opp’n at 3. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that Lee Defendants’ motion is, in effect, a premature motion for summary judgment. Opp’n at 2. Lee Defendants’ motion merely challenges the factual allegations in the Complaint, which is improper at this stage. See Mot. to Dismiss. Moreover, Mr. Johnson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence provided. See Opp’n. “When reviewing motions to dismiss, we favor of the nonmoving party.” Bernhardt v. Cty. Of Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 867 (9th Cir. 2002) (citations omitted). Thus, Lee Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED.

3 Additionally, the Court notes that any doubt either party has about the ADA compliance of || the parking lot can be resolved by the procedure provided in General Order 56 — specifically, the || joint site inspection, which is yet to take place in this case.

6 I. ORDER 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Lee Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at ECF 16. ? IT IS SO ORDERED 11 Dated: February 12, 2020 2 kom Ly homey) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 14 United States District Judge © = 17 Z 18